ML20207A950
| ML20207A950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/13/1988 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Lederer P BAKER & MCKENZIE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19321B636 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR36338, RULE-PR-50 AC94-1-06, AC94-1-6, NUDOCS 8805120198 | |
| Download: ML20207A950 (1) | |
Text
.
Acn x
[b8 April 13, 1988 Mr. Peter D. Lederer, Esq.
Baker & McKenzie
'I 805 Third Avenue New York, N.Y.
10022 i
i
Dear Mr. Lederer:
i c
This rpsponds to your letter dated January 27, 1988, in which you addressed certain issues relat,ad to implementing the NRC's property insurance rule a
published on August 5, 1987. Specifically, you asked advice about t
i 50.54(w)(5)(1), which requires that the decontamination priority and trust requirements set forth in il 50.54(w)(3) and (4) "be incorporated in onsite
. property damage insurance policies for nuclear power plants not later than i
October 4, 1988..."
In your view, this provision.should only be applicable to insurance policies issued to become effective on or after October 4. 1988 i
(youremphasis).
i In response to your request for advice, we have. reviewed the history and _ intent i
j of the subject sections. On the basis of that review, we have concluded that l
the subject sections provide a one-year period for implementing the decontamination priority and trust provisions of the property insurance rule.
1 In selecting this one year period, the Commission apparently relied on coseents made by you and others on the proposed property insurance rule (49 FR 44645,f J
November 8,1984). 1_See your letter dated April, 15,1985.) On the basis o j
this information, the Cosmission concluded that a one-year implementation l
period connencing on the effective date of the rule, which, in turr., was set 60 days after the date of publication of the final rule, would be sufficient to
~
)
accosmodate the annual insurance policy renewal cycle. Accordingly, the staff i
has concluded that your interpretation, which would have the practical effect of extending the period for implementing the provisions of the property 4
insurance rule for an additional twelve months, is incorrect. Under the Cosmission's regulations, this staff advice does not constitute a formal legal Interpretation binding on the Cosmission. Although the General Counsel is authorized to render binding legal interpretations, the General Counsel i
exercises this authority very sparingly and only in instances involving major i
policy or legal questions, 4
i I
If you continue to believe that the one-year implementation schedule under our reading of the rule is unsatisfactorylementation period.you may submit a petition i
i to seek a formal extension of the imp We will, of course, t
consider such a request on its merits.
I If you have an staff at (301)y questions on these matters, please contact Robert Wood of sy 4
492-1280.
l
(
j Sincerely, j
j Orinirnt signed by, Thomas 1.Marlof Thomas E. Murley, Director office of Nu ar_Asacto lation i
)
- 5ee Previous concurrence OSI2d/9 DISTRI8tfT!0N i
4 Central FIGS J. Snierek J. Mapes F. Gillespie D. Nash PTSB r/ P p' 1, Murley F. Miraglia
- 5. Trey C. Thomas
/R. Wood g4 i
- PTSB:NRR
- PTS 8:NRR
- PTS 8:NRR *PMAS:NRR
- 0GC NR :D
/kD l
j.
RWood/jbr DNash CThomas FGillespie STreby J5 k
iTMurley 04/06/88 04/05/88 04/06/88 04/10/88 0a/05/88 04/1 04f/88 l
--